SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(AP) 1002

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, P.S.NARAYANA
Union of India rep.by its Secretary, ministry of Defence, New Delhi - Appellant
Versus
S.M.Hussain Rasheed - Respondent
Decided On : 08-14-03

Headnote:

General Land Register, 1956 –mandamus – Challenging the action of Union of India in holding that the ownership of the land on which Bungalow is situated rests with the Government – It would be just and necessary to notice the prayer in the said writ petition:"for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned proceedings served upon the petitioner as illegal and void after declaring the entries made in the general Land Register, 1956 classifying the Bungalow land as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal and ab initio void being contrary to the provisions of the Cantonments Act and the rules made hereunder and consequently to direct the respondents to refrain from in any manner interfering with the possession and enjoyment of Bungalow Cantonment by the Petitioner while ignoring the entry made in General Land Register and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case –Held, Writ petitioner cannot be allowed to meddle with the property in question in whatsoever manner – Counter affidavit filed by the cantonment Board reveals certain interesting aspects as to how the writ petitioner has been abusing the judicial process – land owners on whose behalf the writ petitioner filed the writ petition got issued a legal notice Advocate in which it is inter alia stated that the power of attorney under which the writ petitioner represented them was a fabricated document and they never appointed the writ petitioner herein as their attorney. Subsequently, the said persons filed a civil suit bearing on the file of the Court of the Chief Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad against the writ petitioner to declare the contract in respect of bungalow and the land admeasuring square yards as rescinded. In the said suit, the Defence estate Officer is also impleaded as one of the defendants, and a detailed counter affidavit and written statement have been filed by him in the said suit – Writ petition shall accordingly stand dismissed.

B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS batch of writ appeals as well as the writ petition may be disposed of by a common judgment, since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration between the same parties.

( 2 ) W. A. NO. 936 of 1999 is filed by the union of India and others against the order dated 26-4-1999 made in W. P. No. 9381 of 1994 by a learned single Judge of this Court, whereas W. A. Nos. 890 and 1407 of 2001 are filed against the order dated 19-4-2001 made by a learned single Judge of this Court in w. P. No. 12124 of 2000, by the Executive officer, Secunderabad Cantonment Board and Defence Estate Officer, A. P. Circle, secunderabad respectively.

( 3 ) W. P. NO. 801 of 2003 is interconnected and, therefore, the same is also taken up for disposal along with these writ appeals. W. A. No. 936 of 1999:

( 4 ) THAT one S. M. Hussain Rasheed (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner ) filed W. P. No. 9381 of 1994, out of which W. A. No. 936 of 1999 has arisen, challenging the action of Union of India in holding that the ownership of the land on which Bungalow No. 219 is situated rests with the Government. It would be just and necessary to notice the prayer in the said writ petition:"for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 18-4-1994, served upon the petitioner on 27-4-1994 as illegal and void after declaring the entries made in the general Land Register, 1956 classifying the Bungalow No. 219 as b (3) land as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal and ab initio void being contrary to the provisions of the Cantonments Act and the rules made hereunder and consequently to direct the respondents to refrain from in any manner interfering with the possession and enjoyment of Bungalow No. 219, situated at Secunderabad Cantonment by the Petitioner while ignoring the entry made in General Land Register and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case,"

( 5 ) THE writ petitioner (respondent in this writ appeal) earlier filed W. P. No. 20839 of 1993 seeking a direction to the Union of india to alter the entry made in column B3 in general Land Register (GLR) and to convert the same into an entry in column B2 relating to Bungalow No. 219 situated in Gymkhana road, Cantonment area, Secunderabad. This court by an order dated 18-1-1994 disposed of the said writ petition directing the Union of India to dispose of the several representations made by the writ petitioner to the concerned authorities for change of entries in the General Land Register of 1956 (GLR) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.

( 6 ) THE Government of India having considered several representations of the writ petitioner by its letter dated 18th April, 1994 informed the writ petitioner as well as one M. Seshagiri Rao, G. P. A. , that after a detailed examination "government has come to the conclusion that the ownership of the land on which Bungalow No. 219 is situated rests with the Government". The government of India accordingly expressed its regrets for altering the entry in respect of the said property in General Land Register of Secunderabad as maintained by the defence Estate Officer, Secunderabad, as prayed for by the writ petitioner.

( 7 ) IT is that order dated 18-4-1994, which has been impugned in W. P. No. 9381 of 1994 on various grounds with the prayer, which we have already noticed.

( 8 ) THE affidavit filed in support of the writ petition makes a somewhat interesting reading. The averments do not reveal as to the interest of the writ petitioner in the said land. The representation dated 3-2-1987 purported to have been made by the general Power of Attorney Holder of owners of Bungalow No. 219 is sought to be relied upon wi


























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top